Darleen brings notice that I have been noticed by Pandagon in the most flattering way possible:
Oh Dan, you should feel honored…
St Amanda of Fornicatus has discovered you
With that in mind, I stopped by Protein Wisdom to entertain myself watching the wingnuts do anything but that. Protein Wisdom is where you go to see people treat an opportunity for self-reflection with the same regard they would reserve for an opportunity to hack your own foot off with a butterknife. The object of hostility today is Glenn Greenwald, who was uncouth enough to do a huge post about this whole thing. The post is by Dan Collins and it’s truly beautiful in its paranoid disregard for the media that seems to stem from an anger at the existence of truth itself. […]
But this entire dust-up seems to be based around the insane notion that the AP is trying to sabotage BushCo, and that they are so interested in doing this that they were willling to tell bald-faced lies about sourcing. That’s McCarthy-level paranoia. The only thing I can figure is that since people like Dan are still throwing a fit even after being shown to be paranoid nuts, they are simply angry that the entire media won’t turn into a BushCo propaganda organization.
St. Amanda has declared the AP a saint of objective, truthful reporting. Dan, fall to your knees and REPENT!
Shit. My hair shirt is at the dry cleaners’, and I seem to have misplaced my flagellum in the recent move. I’ll just have to try and make do with tearing my hair out and casting dirt upon myself, and, maybe, scratching my face till it bleeds.
As I tried to point out in my post on Greenwald, my issue is not about whether or not the AP has had, or has, a source by the name (more or less) of Jamil Hussein, who is in some capacity associated with the Iraqi police. Rather, my issue is with whether or not the stories sourced to this person (assuming he does exist and is the person he claims he is and is the source for the stories, which is in dispute) are true. And in a case where multiple sources dispute the testimony of the AP source, a certain amount of skepticism seems justified.
I don’t see anywhere in her post where Amanda’s able to explain this bit of Greenwald’s screed, which, I’ll agree with her, was long:
And ever since their involvement in the use by Dan Rather of fraudulent documents [ed., would it not be more straightforward to say “exposure of�], and then heightened by Charles Johnson’s oh-so-monumental observation that a Reuters photograph of Lebanon had been photoshopped to give the appearance of more smoke during an Israeli air strike on Beirut, the media has largely recited this storyline.
”[T]heir involvement in the use by Dan Rather of fraudulent documents”? Who is it, Amanda, that seems angry about the exposure of falsehoods? What is it that Gleen attempts to accomplish through this tortured syntax and logic? Let me put it this way: Although David Irving has recanted in the face of his sentencing, one could cite him as a source for the belief that the holocaust didn’t occur, but that wouldn’t change the fact that it did. “Paranoid disregard” is not the same thing as saying that the AP may have been led astray by their source, in the way that Reuters was with the retouched, posed, misprisioned and otherwise falsified photos that they published.
Rather than get into Francis Bacon and Descartes and deduction and induction, let me just point out that in that post, I linked to an article that was noted by Glenn Reynolds, that begins this way:
Physicists do it…Psychologists do it…Even political scientists do it…Research findings confirming a hypothesis are accepted more or less at face value, but when confronted with contrary evidence, we become “motivated skeptics” … picking apart possible flaws in the study, recoding variables, and only when all the counterarguing fails do we rethink our beliefs…
I don’t think that anyone is exempt from this, including myself, Glenn Reynolds, Glenn Greenwald, or Pandagon. Let me cite an example from a comments thread at Patterico. My interlocutor is someone who would agree with you, I think, Amanda, on what constitutes the important part of this brouhaha:
Six killed doesn’t meet the bar for a serious crime? I would think innocent people being burned to death in public would be considered a heinous atrocity, even amid all the other terrible violence. I’m sure the family members want to know who’s responsible. If the military has not even a limited forensic capability, you’d think there’d be some physical evidence to exploit, i.e. fuel residue, burn marks on the sidewalk, blood, etc…
There are still plenty of unanswered questions about this, beyond the existence of Jamil, including the most important question: If this crime ocurred, who did it, and why.
Comment by mrj  1/6/2007 @ 4:58 pm
If this crime ocurred, who did it, and why.
There was in the northern part of Greece a land called Macedon; and this land was at one time ruled over by a war-like king named Philip.
Philip of Macedon wanted to become the master of all Greece. So he raised a great army, and made war upon the other states, until nearly all of them were forced to call him their king. Then he sent a letter to the Spartans in Laconia, and said, “If I go down into your country, I will level your great city to the ground.â€Â
In a few days, an answer was brought back to him. When he opened the letter, he found only one word written there.
That word was “IF.â€Â–The problem is still this “if,†you see, mrj.
Comment by Dan Collins  1/6/2007 @ 5:11 pm
Misreading everything, you cite this from my post:
So, you see, it is mindless tractability to believe what the military tells one, but a sign of good faith to believe uncritically whatever one is told by the AP.
And then you contend:
He had two choices: Believe uncritically or assume that AP makes shit up to make him feel stupid.
That is neither what I said nor what I believe, however much you may think you are accurately representing what I actually wrote. It is not an either/or proposition, though for rhetorical reasons you are motivated to cast it that way. Were you so motivated to bring to bear the same dismissiveness to bear on Greenwald’s piece, your bullshit buzzers would go off when you encountered him using Jayson Blair to smear wingnuts.
We have differences that are not necessarily manifestations of bad faith on your part or mine. If I am driving on I-89 in Vermont in a blizzard, I view the danger according to my own lights. If someone blows past me, I may think that they are nuts, because their calculation is so different from mine, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t stop to help them if I come across them spun out off of the road some miles down it. Some of us honestly believe that we are at war with fundamentalist Islamism, not because we wish to see the authoritarian power of the state increased, but because of our own analysis of the evidence, which is based not only on the evidence per se, but on the reporting of the evidence and the models that we use to contextualize that evidence as we receive it. None of it is unmediated.
I must say, though, that this seems to me extraordinarily paranoid:
since people like Dan are still throwing a fit even after being shown to be paranoid nuts, they are simply angry that the entire media won’t turn into a BushCo propaganda organization
And if it’s fits that interest you, read some more Greenwald.
UPDATE: Heet asks the question, “Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you”? I’m not sure. Something about Kurt Godel, I expect. But you can ask my wife; she probably has theories.
Pfeh. If people like Amanda didn’t gibber, the blogosphere would be a much quieter place.
Also a much more intelligent place, but everything’s a tradeoff.
The question still remains, where’s the evidence of Jamil’s reportage?
the entire media won’t turn into a BushCo propaganda organization
So if Fox news gets the ticker tape from the AP and Fox news is the propaganda machine for the evil BushCo machine is not the AP then a Faux propagandist tool for the evil Empire?
Proggs, they fight to the death to save gay sheep then turn around only to slaughter human babies in the womb; they’re not people they’re Sheeple.
A well reasoned response that might as well be written in Klingon for all the good it will do. If you view the world, as both Gleen & Amanda do, through the filter that everything the “wingnuts” believe is wrong (and probably evil), then the vague meandering attempt at making a point by Gleen becomes a solidly factual treatise.
If, however, you believe that the world is far less easy to describe and that it contains numerous messy little details each deserving a full and honest examination to even begin to be able to describe it factual, then you will see that the words of both Amanda and Gleen read like the words of paranoid children. Which they are.
You bullshit artists really are fucking delusional:
Previous post by Dan:
Comment by Jeff:
Title of a post by The Sanity Inspector:
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you. All anyone has to do is use the search function of the website and type in “Jamil”. Real easy.
Certainly the backslappers here will attack me for bad grammar or poor html skills but my point stands. I mention this for any sane person reading PW who might actually, for a second, believe your defense.
heet,
What part of irony and humor don’t you understand, or is it the whole concept that you miss?
Amanda? Amanda Huggenkiss?
Right. I just don’t *get* your post, that’s the problem. Bite me.
Your position is so nuanced as to allow both the possibility that Jamil exists AND he is a figment of AP’s imagination (expressed through humor, of course). Plausible deniability totally rules. Still doesn’t mean you are totally off your rocker for thinking the AP would MAKE UP a source to discredit the US.
Let’s review: AP’s source, supposedly named “Jamil Gholaiem Hussein,” used to work at Yarmouk but now works at al Khadra.
From Malkin:
So, I ask you: isn’t it the height of McCarthyite paranoia to believe that an AP source whose identity has been touted in 61 articles would refuse to acknowledge that he was the source for the story because to be so identified might expose him to prosecution? Or do you think he’s denying it just to make Greenwald look stupid?
heet is of the belief that wingnutters are terminally angry paranoids and never engage in satire, humor and ironic musings.
That’s leaving aside, of course, that said wingnutters always have evil ulterior motives whatever they do or for whatever they advocate.
Accepted wisdom, doncha know?
So, now it’s your turn to bite me.
heet,
You have got to be the densest, dumbest mother-fucker on these intertubes. Either you are mentally challenged and you can’t reduce an argument to its main propositions or you are a lying crap-weasel.
Actually, it’s not an either/or; I’m certain you are both.
How dare you question the AP when it is so clearly reporting things which heet is willing to believe without verification?
Have you no shame sir?
I think we need to have a web site devoted to letting the public know which entities and/or people we are allowed to question and on what subject matters we are allowed to inquire. It should be called the absolute moral authority report and will allow the left and right to converse with one another using something like the same language.
Like, for example, am I allowed to question Cindy Sheehan on non-war related issues? Or is her moral authority absolute on every subject.
F’in butterknives ……. this could take awhile .
heet
Does the name “Bilal Hussein” ring any bells?
I totally vouch for Jamal Hussein, and for heet. Both are as genuine as the horizon, as real as the sky.
Rusty puts it pretty succinctly at Jawa.
Nice. Etch this in solid rock someplace and let the moonbats talk to it for a change. As a simple contrast to heet-style paranoia, it hews far closer to reality.
Speaking of paranoia, what exactly does this mean, coming from the obviously unhinged?
AP is not a formal system.
Bite me.
Cry toliet and let loose the dogs of bore!!!
[wake me when yer finished, beet]
As S. Frechette has observed about Pandagon, any sane liberals have left that nuthouse long ago. What’s left is the bottom of the cereal box. The disgusting sugared powder that turns into a disgusting mush when you pour milk on it.
As to the first part, it’s a reflection of heet’s limited mental capacity that he does not understand the concept of arguing in the alternative. Jamil could have been a fabricated source, a real source using a pseudonym (as may be the case, based on what is currently known), a real source with confusion caused by translations of Arabic names, etc.
As for being off one’s rocker for considering that Jamil might have been a fabrication, heet is apparently un aware of Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Brian Walski, Adnan Hajj and those at Time and US News who miscaptioned Bruno Stevens’ photos, or the stringer the L.A. Times is using in Ramadi.
Here’s my post in full, occasioned by CENTCOM’S denial that such a person exists.
The gist of the post is about how we get our information. Which redounds to trustworthiness of sources.
Is Hussein—one exists, but is he the “right” one—reliable? 61 stories. From a guy who may be a propagandist. Or who may be a composite character. Does this not pique your interest, heet?
Karl pointed out the other day that many many sources didn’t run the mosque-burning story the AP chose to run because they could not corroborate it; worse, some found conflicting information. And as Armed Liberal has noted, at least 2 of those mosques are confirmed standing.
Given the prevarications it this Hussein account, does this not demand you go back and question his other claims? Find his agenda? Find if he even exists?
The Hussein they found is claiming not to be the AP’s source. So now what? Is Jamil Hussein a common Iraqi name?
The point being, these are questions that are consistent with intellectual curiousity—though they may very well be spurred by a distrust of the media. But why shouldn’t we mistrust war reporting that has given us staged photographs, creative photo editing, and enemy propaganda uncritically repeated?
Or, to put it more simply, what the fuck is wrong with you, heet? You like to pretend we’re the unthinking puppets. But you just look to people like Greenwald to validate what you hope to be the case, after which you act as though the finger of God has touched you and burned the Truth into your hairline.
It’s puzzling. It’s shocking. And when you wear it as a badge of honor, it is revolting.
Pussy. Of epic proportions.
The circle jerk continues. As long as you continue to believe your nonsense arguments are too *nuanced* for the rest of the world to understand, you’ll be marginalized. Perhaps that’s the way you like it – sitting in the corner, railing at the man, tittering at inside jokes about how ugly or gay the rest of the internet looks, like an overeducated clique of Emo kids. Please, keep it up!
They found a guy named Hussein in Iraq? What are the odds of that?
I do think we should allow for the possibility that the Iraqi gov’t has correctly identified this guy as the Jamil Hussein with whom we are concerned. Given that Jamil is not supposed to be talking to the press, it would be reasonable for him to continue to deny he is the guy. And—ironically—the Iraqi gov’t has said it won’t take action, so long as the AP refuses to identify him as the source.
This probably means that the AP will simply claim to be vindicated solely on the word of the gov’t sources it contradicted when they claimed he didn’t work for them. And that fools like heet will take it as gospel, despite the fact that the AP did not substantiate Jamil’s claim of four burned mosques (and, before that, the other story of a dozen victims in an incident where there were only two verified).
No, heet. The arguments and questions are not to nuanced for the rest of the world to understand. They’re just too nuanced for a complete fucking moron like you to understand. Not everyone is a goddamned fool of such proportions as you. You’re special.
To sum up: heet cannot explain why the AP never confirmed Jamil’s claim that four mosques were burned. heet cannot explain why the AP story of where the bodies supposedly went changed without the AP explaining why it changed. heet cannot explain why the same “nonsense” questions were raised by the New York Times, the Washington Post and even Eason Frickin’ Jordan.
Apparently, pointing out the difference between the number one and the number four is too nuanced for heet. As is the difference between a morgue, a freezer and a cemetery.
Look you projecting ninnies : nowhere did I say the AP was pristine or Jamil wasn’t manipulating the press or we should believe everything we hear in the news. My point was quite simple : don’t expect anyone to believe in your righteous horseshit when you have been proven to be so fucking off base by claiming Jamil was concocted by the AP for nefarious reasons. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Cordially,
Heet
heet
You do understand that merely proving the existance of the source of a story is not the same as proving the accuracy of the story, don’t you? Further, the notion that the whole inquiry began because of questions about the accuracy of the accounts, independant of who made them, is not something that you should be so willing to chalk up to nuance.
heet
Make an attempt and read this very very carefully. Try to have your “comprehension hat” on
This from the 9/11 conspiracists camp…
Preiceless.
Nuance? What is that, heet, some river in Egypt? Because the word I know would never be used to describe the sledgehammer these boys have just beaten you and the AP with
It’s my understanding that both John Amato AND Duncan Black have named heet as Wanker of the Millennium. His recurring posts here would appear to fully support that designation….
1. I’m sure heet has plenty of links to substantiate the claim that everyone thought the AP had “nefarious intent.”
2. heet posits that being mistaken (assuming the MoI actually has “the” Jamil Hussein, which the AP has not confirmed for the reasons stated above) on one point means that we should not believe “righteous horsehit.” OTOH, “nowhere did [heet] say the AP was pristine or Jamil wasn’t manipulating the press or we should believe everything we hear in the news.” heet wants to have it both ways—the AP may have things wrong and Jamil may be manipulating them, but no one should question it, because if the critics are wrong on one point, they should be disbelieved. Of course, heet does not hold the AP or Jamil to the same standard. There is a word for this: hackery.
OK, heet has to be a parody. Well played whoever you are.
For the record, I don’t do anything that doesn’t have a nefarious purpose. I’m just powerful like that.
Nuance? What is that, heet, some river in Egypt? Because the word I know would never be used to describe the sledgehammer these boys have just beaten you, GiGi and the AP with
So now AP is leveraging the Jamil Hussein episode like this:
Seems like they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they had just adopted this unwieldy little locution earlier. Now, it seems like a transparent attempt to change the subject from accuracy to “the difficult environment in which we work.” As self-aggrandizing as it is self-defeating.
Seeking to reinforce heet’s stereotype of a Jesus lovin’ red-stater:
I’m thinkin’ that in a sane world these fellas would be given about thirty seconds to explain themselves before being barked at by dogs, stacked in a nude pyramid, led around naked on a leash by a butch army volunteer, have their nut sacks wired in series to a 900 amp tractor battery, water-boarded and then asked again what the hell they are up to. Repeat as necessary.
Also, there wouldn’t be any live helicopter video of the port area streaming into my living room. There would just be a small blurb on page A6 of the Miami Herald that some “potential terrorists were thwarted by sensible Homeland Security agents last Sunday…â€Â.
they are simply angry that the entire media won’t turn into a BushCo propaganda organization
Nah, I’m just angry that the entire media has turned into an anti-American propoganda organization.
happyfeet
What’s even funnier is that here in BushReichland, law enforcement agencies frown unhappy frowns (and write nasty things in personnel files) if an officer speaks to a reporter without prior clearance or authorization.
I guess it’s a sign of progress that the notoriously corrupt Iraqi police are at least acknowledging that they are accountable for their behavior, but isn’t it likely that the officers eager to break media protocol would be drawn from the pool of officers who are rather casual about rule-following generally?
But I think the point is that the reporter on this story could have easily confirmed the marketplace incident without suborning a police officer. But then he would have had to forego the deliciousness of injecting a patina of heroic first amendmentyness into his report that reminds readers that he is working under really really tough conditions.
Actually, it looks like we are to believe that in Iraq, a rampaging trio of gunmen can kill three people and the only source for this information is, understandably, a lone anonymous police officer.
Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:
1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.
2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.
Pfeh. If people like heet didn’t gibber, the blogosphere would be a much quieter place.
Also a much more intelligent place, but everything’s a tradeoff.
(The above is © 2007, All Rights Reserved)
That was a sledgehammer? I don’t give a fuck about the bathrobe brigade and their Google skillz. As I’ve mentioned before, I post here for purely therapeutic reasons. I enjoy taunting you cocksuckers.
No, but when outrageous claims and accusations of treason are nonchalantly barfed out and then discredited, you don’t do yourselves any favors. The wingnut-o-sphere has gained zero credibility from this issue.
Keep patting yourselves on the back for pointing out reporting the news in Iraq is a messy business. Many people who care enough to pay attention know that. For those who don’t… Well, if they even knew about the Jamil stories it was lost in the clutter of other mass killings, kidnappings, and bombings.
But you totally burned the AP man!
Heet, maybe you’d get better therapy by taunting actual wingnuts who actually say what you’re attributing to them.
This is not that place.
Hmmm. Okay, so accuracy is unimportant, just so long as the right gestalt is established? What if I were to be a real totalitarian wingnut and tell you, “Fuck the Freedom of Information Act: be satisfied with what the government gives you”?
You impress me as an ugly person, heet, if cocksucker taunting is your idea of therapy. Cockslapping . . . now that’s another story entirely.
Oh, and bite me again.
beet:
How many fingers am I holding up? Just one. You need to be fitted for some new glasses…
DRAFT BEER NOT POEPEL !!!
Dan. DAN!
Do not invite heet to bite you. Only a very superficial review of his posts betrays logic impaired by years of tertiary syphilis, identical to that Vladimir Lenin suffered before his gruesome, poison-deprived death.
I know that syphilis at this stage is not contagious. But other STDs are likely. Ya know?
taunt 1 (tônt)
tr.v. taunt·ed, taunt·ing, taunts
1. To reproach in a mocking, insulting, or contemptuous manner. See Synonyms at ridicule.
2. To drive or incite (a person) by taunting.
n.
A scornful remark or tirade; a jeer.
I could only be prouder if you were making actual arguments.
geez, don’t worry about it. I was actually thinking of this:
Arthur Clement Hilton (1851-1877)
Octopus
By Algernon Charles Sin-Burn
1Strange beauty, eight-limbed and eight-handed,
2 Whence camest to dazzle our eyes?
3With thy bosom bespangled and banded
4 With the hues of the seas and the skies;
5Is thy home European or Asian,
6 O mystical monster marine?
7Part molluscous and partly crustacean,
8 Betwixt and between.
9Wast thou born to the sound of sea trumpets?
10 Hast thou eaten and drunk to excess
11Of the sponges—thy muffins and crumpets,
12 Of the seaweed—thy mustard and cress?
13Wast thou nurtured in caverns of coral,
14 Remote from reproof or restraint?
15Art thou innocent, art thou immoral,
16 Sinburnian or Saint?
17Lithe limbs, curling free, as a creeper
18 That creeps in a desolate place,
19To enroll and envelop the sleeper
20 In a silent and stealthy embrace,
21Cruel beak craning forward to bite us,
22 Our juices to drain and to drink,
23Or to whelm us in waves of Cocytus,
24 Indelible ink!
25O breast, that ‘twere rapture to writhe on!
26 O arms ‘twere delicious to feel
27Clinging close with the crush of the Python,
28 When she maketh her murderous meal!
29In thy eight-fold embraces enfolden,
30 Let our empty existence escape,
31Give us death that is glorious and golden,
32 Crushed all out of shape!
33Ah! thy red lips, lascivious and luscious,
34 With death in their amorous kiss,
35Cling round us, and clasp us, and crush us,
36 With bitings of agonised bliss;
37We are sick with the poison of pleasure,
38 Dispense us the potion of pain;
39Ope thy mouth to its uttermost measure
40 And bite us again!
so geezer are you saying that if a “heet” bites you, you become one? *shivers*
why do you all let him continue to pee on the rug? he’s asked many times for a banning. so for once, why not make his predictions come true? Let him go back to the playground to call people names and get his “therapy”.
heet blustered:
Maybe not with people like you it hasn’t, but no one in the “wingnut-o-sphere” gives a shit what you think. You’re less than insignificant, and because you’re a loser who got beat up a lot in high school, you try to work through your repressed anger by puffing up your sunken, spindly chest in blog comments “for therapeutic reasons.” I feel sorry for you.
The crucial thing is that the AP now realizes that if it doesn’t bother fact-checking its own stories, there are people out there who’ll do it for them, to the ongoing detriment of the AP’s credibility and image.
39Ope thy mouth to its uttermost measure
40 And bite us again!
Anyone know how to get bourbon out of a laptop keyboard?
And multiple immolations.
There it is, finally: Jamil Hussein is fake but accurate. Can’t you hear the din, wingnuts?
Darleen wrote:
Heet is a posterboy for the word “projection”.
“61 stories. From a guy who may be a propagandist. Or who may be a composite character. Does this not pique your interest, heet?”
No no, of course not. See, he’s telling the CORRECT stories. No need to question him or them, no need at all. His heart’s obviously in the right place.
Now, Faux News, on the other hand…
And the word “anus”
Turn your back for a moment and the madmen erupt from the woodwork. Who is this 24 karat cretin heet? What point is he trying to make?
We establish that AP has been attributing its reports to a non-existent ‘source’, and heet manages to convert that into an assertion that Dan is a McCarthyite paranoiac.
He also seems to think that gratuitous use of obscenity will somehow add weight to his assertions.
Sad little fellow. Possibly in a “live in” situation with Amanda.
furriskey, I think it might be a live-in situation with Gleen.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Oh dear. But who are we to point the finger?
He might reverse onto it.
furriskey:
He’s one of those folk that take pleasure in spewing and/or inflicting abuse upon people.
You know, an asshole.
But who are we to point the finger?
The finger might be enough upon which to pivot all that for which heet is, or stands, or asserts to be true. For what else is there in a godless universe?
But I don’t want Heet pivoting on my finger.
And now we have Cynn down on her/his knees servicing Heet in the next thread up. Bile meets profanity. I feel ill.
Sad little fellow. Possibly in a “live in†situation with Amanda
Possibly explains his obsession with cocksucking.
blondie: You’re sick, and I do nothing of the sort. Figure it out, bileman. cheers.
On the one hand:
and on the other:
Chuckle. Speaking of poking festing boils…
Layers and nuance all in one finely crafted package.
But what explains yours with Amanda?
Who is obsessed with Amanda, Fantastic / teh l4m3? Dan was reacting to a post that claimed to summarize his post—incorrectly, as is Marcotte’s tradition—and then commenters here responded to Dan’s post.
Obsession with someone would be, oh, I don’t know, putting together an entire fake website that attempts to mimic him or her (usually very poorly), say. Or doing long, “Adlerian” analyses on his or her psychology based on blog comments purposely pulled from their context. Or trotting out same “Adlerian” analysis everytime said subject speaks, in a pathetic attempt to discredit the object of the obsession, even as doing so continues to fetishize him or her.
Incidentally, I understand that I’m your favorite failed-academic-cum-hausfrau, teh l4m3 / Fantastic—and I appreciate the fixation, if only for its tenaciousness—but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t creep me out a bit.
Now scurry back to Amanda’s blog and report that you’ve dutifully poked the wingnut hive mind with your pointy little head. Amanda does demand her tithes.
Before yesterday, I had nevert hreard of Amanda.
After reading Pan-whatever for about an hour, all I can say is: “Amanda, if your dick can reach your ass, go fuck yourself”. And is there any question that you have one, or at least lust for one?
“Fuck logic. I’m pissed!
“I can’t do it by myself, so it’s your fuckin’ fault! You fucking dickmasters! I am better than you, even if I’m the only one who knows it!”
Amanda , you are precious! A true American relic…
Thanks for the laughs
TW: miss83. Jeff, I thought I’d done enough insulting, but you kicked my butt with this.
Miss?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!